Robin Meadow

Biography

Few appellate specialists have successfully tried a jury case. Robin Meadow tried jury cases for over 20 years at a major commercial firm, while also handling appeals, in many fields of law. Over time, he realized that it’s nearly impossible to excel at both trials and appeals, because the skill sets and practice rhythms differ completely and often clash. Concluding that his greatest strengths lay in appellate work, Robin joined GMSR in 1994, handling his last trial late that year.

Robin’s trial-court experience gives him a unique perspective on appellate work.He understands the demands and pressures trial lawyers face and the many ways that things can go wrong in the trial court.And he is very much at home consulting with trial lawyers during trial, helping them protect their appellate record so they’re well positioned to either preserve a victory or overturn a defeat.

Robin’s practice at GMSR continues the substantive focus he developed in his earlier years—business disputes, real estate, partnerships, and probate and entertainment law.But, like most appellate lawyers, he is a generalist and at GMSR has also handled multiple significant appeals involving healthcare, family law, personal injury and bankruptcy.

He is also an expert in technology for appellate lawyers and courts.A pioneer in the use of electronic records and briefs, Robin co-authored the California Second District Court of Appeal’s first protocol for electronic briefs (since adopted by other California Courts of Appeal), and he filed the first electronic brief ever accepted by a California appellate court.

When he isn’t practicing law, he enjoys spending time with his family, reading about history and playing bass guitar in a rock band.

Education

J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law (1971). Order of the Coif, California Law Review (Associate Editor).

In re Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871

Mr. Meadow was lead counsel of a team that persuaded the California Supreme Court to allow reformation of wills based on extrinsic evidence—overturning a principle of will interpretation that dated back nearly 500 years to the first Act of Wills. In doing so, the Court aligned California with modern academic and judicial thinking on how best to determine testators’ intent.

Holding that a new statute covered cases filed before it was enacted, the Court of Appeal held that Labor Code section 98.7 does not require an employee to exhaust that statute’s administrative remedies before filing suit on a claim for retaliation against a private employer.

Novak v. Fay (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 329

In this first-impression case, the Court of Appeal harmonized some apparently conflicting laws and ruled that the holder of an attorney lien need not file a creditor’s claim in the probate estate of the deceased client.

Wilson v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123

Court articulates new criteria for evaluating whether a defendant’s conduct creates a nuisance

Mr. Meadow was lead counsel of a team that persuaded the Court of Appeal that existing CACI nuisance instructions did not adequately express the factors that Supreme Court precedent required juries to consider. The court articulated new criteria that have since been embodied in a CACI jury instructions.

$300 Million “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” Verdict Against Disney Affirmed

Mr. Meadow was lead counsel of a team that obtained affirmance of $320 million contract judgment against Disney arising out of Disney’s refusal to pay profits owed on the wildly successful “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” program.

Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873

Court rejects claim that a lease allowed perpetual renewals

Reviewing case law from throughout the United States, the Court of Appeal concluded that the law disfavors perpetual leases; that perpetual rights must be explicitly stated; and that a renewal clause that is ambiguous as to the number of renewals confers only a single right of renewal.

We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.